 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / June 2006Cato was right
The current debate on the vaguries of the certification process wouldn't even exist if the NAR and the TRA weren't acting as if they were a regulatory agency. The original concept was for the NAR to test motors so as to assure <i>the consumer</i> that they were getting what they paid for, and were in no danger. How has this become the determining factor under which motor makers are judged? One guess is the NFPA meetings in circa 1997. Regardless the NAR and the TRA are spending boodles of money fighting the regulatory indiscretion of the BATFE. Which is very good. But isn't it just a tad hypocritical of the NAR to _act_ like a regulatory agency...banning those motors which they don't like for what is apparently no good reason? The entire testing regime of S&T is nonsensical. How is it that companies like Estes, which have gone through several ownership changes since their last certification, can go over ELEVEN YEARS without a test? If the idea is to protect the consumer why isn't the requirement for timely samples being made? Would you trust a company to build a road that last had it's construction techniques reviewed in 1995? I think it's _way_ past time for the NAR to put on the Big Boy Pants and revamp the entire certification process. Admit that they have let things get partisan and slip shod, and review the whole affair. How about one static test and ten static firings to determine whether a motor will blow up? Isn't that what we were originally told? To determine whether the motor won't blow up and the average newtons is what the manufactuer is claiming? That isn't hard. What is hard is describing special priviledges and partisan hatreds as a normal part of the system. That, Bunny, is why so many are now calling Bullshit on you and your henchmen. You've got a lot of 'splainin to do, Bunny. Thank you QM. That's the first smart thing I've read here in a very looooooooooooooooooooong time. What you say makes perfect sense and goes right to the heart of the problem. Cato did in fact, bring this very point to the forefront almost a decade ago. Instead of hundreds of posts on some nobody's qualifications and hours of useless pontification on another's attitude, ethics, whereabouts, genetic lineage whatever, questions like these need to be addressed. Nothing, and I mean nothing of value is gained by the other discussions. In fact, childish and silly gossip mongering is worse than benign as it detracts from the real issues that beg our attention. QM has hit on one of the big ones. Thank you. Now, how do we get action on this? How do we get the NAR to change it's direction and get back to advancing the hobby while at the same time, maintaining it's aggressive defense of MR against the onslaught of Government oversight?  SignatureR. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736 > attention. QM has hit on one of the big ones. Thank you. Now, how do we > get action on this? How do we get the NAR to change it's direction and get > back to advancing the hobby while at the same time, maintaining it's > aggressive defense of MR against the onslaught of Government oversight? BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a difference. I am not joking. Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com >> attention. QM has hit on one of the big ones. Thank you. Now, how do we >> get action on this? How do we get the NAR to change it's direction and get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a >difference. I am not joking. Good point. Poeple complaining is a joke when year after year there are 3 positions open and only the 3 incumbents run. If it bothers anyone, they should at least run & show that they care about an issue enough to try to fix it. This year TRA has 7 people running for 3 spots on the board because they want to contribute their talents to the organization. hello greg ltns: on the face of it, this looks like a reasonable assumption to make. But is it? Lets take a closer look shall we? Back in 90's when the TRA threanted to "run a slate" against the incumbent NARBOT, the NAR changed their bylaws to prevent a "hostile takeover" of this kind. Assuming 1 new NARBOT was elected each year replacing an incumbent, it would take a minimum of 5 years to get a 5-4 majority. And remember its the NARBOT that chooses the President from among itself. So for the first 5 years you would get split party line votes like : Year 1: 8-1 Year 2: 7-2 Year 3: 6-3 Year 4: 5-4 Year 5: 4-5 And now of the above take into consideration the bylaws requirements that no more 2/3 of the NARBOT can be from only 1 of 3 regions. So any real changes would take a minimum of 5 years to take place. And remember my assumption: that 1 new NARBOT member is voted in each year? Thats unrealistic, and its unrelaistic to think that any of the new NARBOT memebrs would vote in a block against the incumbents anyway. When you add into the mix that only 2-3% at most vote per election cycle, the odds are even dimmer. terry dean ps I'm gonna go out and launch my Ecee on an A10-0T-A3-4T combo! >> attention. QM has hit on one of the big ones. Thank you. Now, how do we >> get action on this? How do we get the NAR to change it's direction and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a > difference. I am not joking. You had better stop playing with your toys & get to work. I'm sure you will make a great BOT member. Phil >hello greg ltns: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a >> difference. I am not joking. > So any real changes would take a minimum of 5 years to take place. > And remember my assumption: that 1 new NARBOT member is voted in each year? > Thats unrealistic, and its unrelaist ic to think that any of the new NARBOT > memebrs would vote in a block against the incumbents anyway. Your entire response could have been boiled down to just two short sentences: "It's too hard and takes to long. Complaining is easier." > When you add into the mix that only 2-3% at most vote per election cycle, > the odds are even dimmer. How do you figure that? The odds of being elected are based on how people vote, not on how many people vote. s > How do you figure that? The odds of being elected are based on how > people vote, not on how many people vote. "Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything." SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! Ah Yes Comrade. >> How do you figure that? The odds of being elected are based on how >> people vote, not on how many people vote. > > "Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything." > Assuming 1 new NARBOT was elected each year replacing an incumbent, it would > take a minimum of 5 years to get a 5-4 majority. And remember its the NARBOT > that chooses the President from among itself. So for the first 5 years you > would get split party line votes like : Well, if people were REALLY upset about something, you could elect 3 the first year, and 3 moroe the second year, and you're done. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! snip Before this thread goes off into infinity, is it possible for anyone here to give a simple answer to whatever happened to Cato and why? I had just happened on to rmr not long before the 85 page email and never fully understood the situation. With all the usual RMR Twilight Zone explanations I never knew which "alternate universe - time line" was the correct one. Randy www.vernarockets.com My take on it after talking with John a few years back (in print not by voice) was that he ran afoul of the politics in TRA and called to question some motor certs as well as some of the "business" practices of the outfit. There was something more IIRC that involved some whistle blowing. John had/has an ego and not only wouldn't back down, but became increasingly vocal. Some shunned him, some were put off, some embraced him but over all, he tired of the game and moved on. That was my take on it. As to what he's doing now, well, from time to time I hear he still shows up at some rocket events but prefers to stay on the sidelines. SignatureR. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736 Additionally I think that John Cato was saying that the games played regarding certification were hypocritical and _would_ come back to haunt the hobby. That having a private organization playing cop...requiring all sorts of information that really have nothing to do with a motors consistency...was an invitation to outside forces to become involved. Which I believe to have happened circa 1997. I'm sure John could do better in about 8,000 words. ;) QM > My take on it after talking with John a few years back (in print not by > voice) was that he ran afoul of the politics in TRA and called to question [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NAR #69594 > NRA #133073736 quilly: I agree 100% percent with your central point that the job and responsibility of motor certification should be all that the NAR or TRA does. They should act as "gatekeeper" cops, asking for USDOT paperwork,LEUP,CPSC paperwork,etc..... Their only job is to test the motors, and make sure they are safe for use by consumers. Its the job of the USDOT,BATFE,CPSC,NFPA, whoever to provide the enforcemnet function not the NAR's nor the TRA's. But as we all know, the NAR nor the TRA will say or do this, because of one person, "the person whose name shall not be spoken". Prior to "the person whose name shall not be spoken" decided he wanted to get into the illegal motor manufacturing ripoff and scam, I'm sure both NAR and TRA never asked for all of the above described paperwork, because the NAR and TRA have consistently told their membership: we are not an enforcement agency. And now the NAR is doing just what it believes with these czech delta motors: they aren't requiring any USDOT paperwork, LEups,CPSC paperwork,nfpa compliance etc and allowing these motors to be used by selective people at selective times at selective places. But you know If I start making motors or you start making motors, or "the person who shall not be named" shows up they will still function as the Gatekeeper and will never allow our motors to be used or sold. Basically what the NAR is telling its membership with this new policy is this: You will not be kicked out of the NAR for using uncertfied motors at NAR venues, as long as we selected the uncertifed motors to be used and who they will be used by. What they ARENOT telling its membership is this: Although you may be 100% aok with the NAR, you will still be in violation of the NFPA regulations if they are effect; you will be in violation of USDOT hazmat classification, CPSC marking and Labeling, etc. And the ONLY WAY you can be in violation of NFPA,USDOT,CPSC.BATFE or alphabet soup agency is if somebody sees what you are doing and tells on you. SO the NAR is putting its own membership at risk, at this. When the USDOT and CPSC enforcemnt comes down on these Czech delta motors( and it will), the enforcement will not be against the NAR: it will be against the individual NAR members who are caught using,selling,distributing,transporting these motors among themselves. The good news is these fed agencies will probbaly charge these people with Civil penalties al "the one whose name shall not be spoken"... but then criminal liability is also not out of the question. The NAR hasn't exactly provided its membership here with FULL DISCLOUSRE over the exposed risks they are placing their selective members at. terry dean > Additionally I think that John Cato was saying that the games played > regarding certification were hypocritical and _would_ come back to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> NAR #69594 >> NRA #133073736 > But you know > If I start making motors or you start making motors, or "the person who > shall not be named" shows up they will still function as the Gatekeeper > and will never allow our motors to be used or sold. Therein lies the problem -- inconsistent rules, and inconsistent application of them. The playing field MUST be level. > You will not be kicked out of the NAR for using uncertfied motors > at NAR venues, as long as we selected the uncertifed motors to be used > and who they will be used by. Back to inconsistent treatment. If you're one of the golden few, you get one set of rules. Everyone else gets another. THAT is the problem. > Although you may be 100% aok with the NAR, you will still be in > violation of the NFPA regulations if they are effect; you will be in > violation of USDOT hazmat classification, CPSC marking and Labeling, > etc. NAR's not responsible for enforcement of those. They're responsible for enforcement of their own rules. If their rules happen to match a TLA, then so be it, but NAR is only enforcing that agency's rules, because they happen to match their own. There HAS to be transparency, and folks have to know they'll all get treated the same. If you walk in with a special request and get turned down, then if I walk in with the same request, I should get turned down as well, as should any other member with the same request. My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in our face as the reason why. -Kevin > My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors at > a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in our > face as the reason why. So, you're condemning the NARBOT based on a guess. When you've made your request and been turned down, let us all know... >> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors >> at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in >> our face as the reason why. >> > So, you're condemning the NARBOT based on a guess. When you've made > your request and been turned down, let us all know... OK, I'll bite. I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for example) C5-3 motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the manufacturer discontinued making them, not because of any real or perceived safety issue. I was turned down, and I believe fallaciously (i.e., the arguments put forth by Mark Bundick are not salient). http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23855&highlight=narprez David Erbas-White david: and whats this new policy decision even worse, is the c5-3 and c11-0 motors were both made in this country by USA known manufacturers, with liability insurance ( I'm sure the Czech Delta motor manufacturer has no such liability insurnace), and the usa motors were even priveiously certfied and passed both USDOT/CPSC requirements, which can't be said for the Czech deltas. terry dean >>> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors at >>> a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in our [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David Erbas-White > I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for > example) C5-3 motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the > manufacturer discontinued making them, not because of any real or > perceived safety issue. I was turned down, and I believe fallaciously > (i.e., the arguments put forth by Mark Bundick are not salient). C5-3s and a few other motors got a 2 year reprieve. But other motors that have just been decertified (NCR, Kosdon) got no such reprieve. Yet another double standard. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! snip Simply as a sidebar... I'm sure just like land mines in Europe, there are a few still floating around out there but does anyone use the C5-3's anymore, even for private launches? After the rep they acquired in the late 90's I wouldn't want one in my range box much less one of my rockets. Randy www.vernarockets.com > Simply as a sidebar... I'm sure just like land mines in Europe, there are a > few still floating around out there but does anyone use the C5-3's anymore, > even for private launches? After the rep they acquired in the late 90's I > wouldn't want one in my range box much less one of my rockets. I went through about 8-10 packs of them last fall to use them all up. All worked fine until our last launch of the year, then 2 catoed out of the same pack. I didn't fly the third one. I found one more pack over the winter, and since their certification was extended for another 2 years, I flew one or two at the last NIRA launch, and another this weekend at CIRFF-XI. WHo knows if there's more of them hiding in my basement. Bot if the issue is that C5-3s are failing at a high rate, the thing that should happen is NAR S&T should decertify the motor, or the problem batches. Like they did with the old E15s. But I've got plenty of Estes, Centuri, FSI, MPC, Cox, AVI, MRC, and other long gone motors that were dropped from the cert list that still work as good today as what you cam buy brand new at your local hobby shop. If we're going to decertify rocket motors just because the company is out of business, then why are Aerotech motors made in the 90s still certified? The company that made them went out of business, and their remaining assets were sold in a bankrupcy sale. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! I still have a bunch of C5-3's, and I never have had one CATO. Now that I've said that, I'll probably never have one work right again. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Randy > www.vernarockets.com SignatureChristopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 level II > I still have a bunch of C5-3's, and I never have had one CATO. Now that > I've said that, I'll probably never have one work right again. Well, you now have 19 months to burn them up. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for >example) C5-3 motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the >manufacturer discontinued making them, not because of any real or >perceived safety issue. I was turned down, and I believe fallaciously >(i.e., the arguments put forth by Mark Bundick are not salient). I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification policy. So, what should the motor decertification policy be? Glen Overby > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Glen Overby > Excellent question. My mistake was in making a general statement that I'd like to see a way to allow motors (such as A10-0T) be used, since there is no rational reason not to. That essentially left the burden on Bunny to interpret my request, and he interpreted it in a why that was not consistent with my intent -- but I can't blame him, that's human nature. It's also a case of my ignoring my own advice to others, to wit: if you're going to present a proposal, write it out, present a concise summary of the problem and the circumstances, propose a solution, and anticipate the arguments it will face. Since the fault was mine in not outlining a comprehensive request, I have just (yesterday) ordered the NFPA 1122 and 1127 codes. When I receive them, I will review them, and come up with what I believe to be a rational, reasoned recommendation. If I can find a way to recommend it within the constraints of the current codes, I will, if not, I will recommend changes to the codes that will allow this at some future time. Anyone who has rational, reasoned comments on this is welcome to send them to me (either directly or posting them here). I'm not interested in invective, or how the BOT is a bunch of wascals, or how others have attempted this and not succeeded -- just nice, calm discussion on the pros and cons of the issue. It can be my turn to tilt at the windmill (<G>). David Erbas-White You may want a copy of 1125 as well. -Fred Shecter NAR 20117 Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ >>>I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for example) C5-3 >>>motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the manufacturer discontinued [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > David Erbas-White Ordered, thanks. David Erbas-White > You may want a copy of 1125 as well. > > -Fred Shecter NAR 20117 the simple solution is to use USE BEFORE DATES on the motors which is already allowed by the NFPA code... this releives the rocket manufacturer of any liability issues, which is what the NAR screams everytime the question comes up. For example staring tomorrow if all motor shave Use before date xxxxxx and that date was lets say 10 years/15 years/20 years into the future, then any motors used after that date would be the sole responsibility of the end user. So if they take out an eye, its the end users fault because he is using it past its expiration date. I don't think the NAR should be in the business of worrying about liability issues for Estes Industries. EI has their own lawyers and liability insuranace and if somebody gets hurt its on them not the NAR. David: I would like to work with you on this and I know somebody else that has an interest in this also who might be interested. terry dean >>>I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for >>>example) C5-3 motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > David Erbas-White > Excellent question. My mistake was in making a general statement that > I'd like to see a way to allow motors (such as A10-0T) be used, since [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not, I will recommend changes to the codes that will allow this at > some future time. Okay, I just received the 1122, 1125, and 1127 codes today. I just read through 1125, and will re-read it to make sure that I'm not missing anything, but the ONLY thing I can find in relation to decertification is the following: "8.4 Decertification. The rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be decertified by the certifying entity if it is determined that the rocket motor or motor-reloading kit no longer complies with the original certification criteria or current certification criteria, with respect to safety." I find absolutely nothing else regarding decertification, and certainly nothing regarding things such as 'contest certification', etc. Please note that it does not grant leeway to the certifying entity to remove certification based on arbitrary decisions, such as the motor no longer being manufactured. It also places no time constraints of any sort on the certification. It also says that it shall be decertified "if it is determined... no longer complies". This does not mean that it can be arbitrarily decertified, but that a reasoned, defensible, logical argument has been put forth that the SAFETY (emphasis mine) has been compromised. Since I was referred to the NFPA documents as reasons why NAR can't change 'their' certification requirements, can someone point me to the paragraph/section that specifically allows or specifies decertification procedures/requirements (which was my original concern/question)? David Erbas-White david: what you found is all there is. the NAR S&T may have its own decertfication policies....from their 1993 policy: Removal of Certification ---------------------- The process of decertification of a motor is based on the date of a significant event. Significant events include (but are not limited to): * The day the manufacturer ceases operations. * The day the manufacturer informs S&T (or it becomes generally known) the manufacture of a motor has ceased. * The day the manufacturer fails to submit the motor when requested for triennial recertification. Once the significant event has occurred, decertification begins. During the decertification period, motors manufactured after the date of the significant event are not certified. Motors manufactured before the date of the significant event remain certified according to the following timetable: * Contest certification for that motor is dropped at the end of that contest year. A contest year runs from July 1 through June 30 and includes the NARAM at the end of that contest year, which may be after June 30. * General certification as a model or high power rocket motor is dropped three years from the date of the significant event. The only exceptions to the above decertification schedule is as follows: * In the case of government regulatory action, decertification may be immediate. * In the case of consumer complaints, safety problems, blind testing failures, or triennial testing failures, NAR certification may be suspended or withdrawn if the manufacturer fails to solve the problem within six months from the date of notification. keep in mind the above is the 1993 policy; it may be completely different now. Why don't you contact NAR S&T and see if you can get a copy of their latest policy? I did 3 years ago and I'm still waiting. Lately the historical reason for decertfication is "manufacturer" liability issues. I personally don't see why the NAR should have to worry about "manufacturer" liability issues. I assume that all the US motor manufacturers have the requiste liability insurance. Like I said in an earlier post, the solution to the "manufacturer" liability issue, is that the manufcaturer can place a USE BEFORE DATE on the motor. If the use before date is 10 years from date of manufacture, and its used after that time period, would not all liability be that of the end user only? Notice in NFPA 1125 it states that a determination must be made? The only possible way this determination might be made, is if the motor(s) in question are actually tested by NAR S&T. NAR S&T really doesn't want the resposnsibility of doing this I think. As they would have to store and keep motors from different batches over many years and perform testing on them on a regul;ar basis to see if the motors are out of original spec. By the way, Micromeister over on TRF suggested just this approach, store and test motors over time now so we would have a future database....but it was denied for the "manufacture" liability rationale. The NAR wants endusers to pay for their own testing. 7.9 Motor Shelf Life. 7.9.1 When the performance of a solid propellant rocket motor or motor-reloading kit deviates from the sample test criteria and limits detailed in 7.8.6 within 5 years from the date of manufacture, it shall be withdrawn from commercial sale and redesigned to provide reliable operation when ignited within 5 years from the date of manufacture. 7.9.2 If the expected shelf life of a rocket motor or motorreloading kit is less than 10 years, the manufacturer shall imprint a "use before" date on the package or motor casing. terry dean >> Excellent question. My mistake was in making a general statement that >> I'd like to see a way to allow motors (such as A10-0T) be used, since [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > David Erbas-White > Anyone who has rational, reasoned comments on this is welcome to send > them to me (either directly or posting them here). I'm not interested [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David Erbas-White Okay, now I've done it (<G>). I have 'volunteered' to correct the current NAR S&T certifications policies and procedures. I have received the latest P&P in draft form, and will be working on creating the 'current' document (which will only be corrected for typos, at the direction of John Lyngdal, S&T Secretary). Once that is done, I will be submitting to the S&T Committee and the BOT any changes that might be 'useful'. I will add that I received information from several individuals during this process (to this point), and the current approved revisions appear to be minor changes from the copies from the nineties that some folks sent me... I'm planning on getting rough drafts done this week, so once I have submitted those to S&T, I'll ask for them to be 'published for comment'. Thanks to all who have participated... David Erbas-White > I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification policy. > So, what should the motor decertification policy be? Motors should be added to the certification list when they pass the required testing. Motors should be removed from the list if and when they no longer meet those criteria. If they are old but still work fine, they stay on the list. If they start to cato 3 months after manufacture, they get pulled. There is absolutely no reason that of the Sagans of blue mailing tubes I have in my basement, all made around 1970, that some should still be CONTEST CERTIFIED, a few safety certified, and most uncertified. They are all just as reliable as what you can buy today in any hobby shop in the country. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification policy. >> So, what should the motor decertification policy be? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >meet those criteria. If they are old but still work fine, they stay on the >list. If they start to cato 3 months after manufacture, they get pulled. That was a non-answer at best, at worst you said "certified forever" but without admitting as much. So what are the criteria you're focusing on and how do you determine that they no longer meet the criteria? >There is absolutely no reason that of the Sagans of blue mailing tubes I >have in my basement, all made around 1970, that some should still be CONTEST >CERTIFIED, a few safety certified, and most uncertified. They are all just >as reliable as what you can buy today in any hobby shop in the country. So, how do you determine which ones are not safe enough to be certified? Glen Overby The way I read Bob's message is that they would be certified forever until enough evidence suggests they are no longer safe. Bob can correct if not so. That evidence collection loop would be similar to our system of innocent until proven guilty. The focus should be on keeping them certified, not the other way around. Certified forever until proven statistically bad is not such a bad idea. Historically, the safety code and a little common sense has kept this hobby amazingly safe compared to almost any other. ~ Duane Phillips. "the disturbing effect of new learning on the performance of previously learned behavior with which it is inconsistent" - Merriam-Webster at www.webster.com on "interference" >>> I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification >>> policy. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Glen Overby >> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors >> at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in >> our face as the reason why. >> > So, you're condemning the NARBOT based on a guess. When you've made > your request and been turned down, let us all know... No, I'm basing it on a recent event -- the NAR President was asked to consider allowing NAR members to fly CERTIFIED motors at TRA Research launches, assuming that TRA approved it. The NAR President refused, claiming that it was a violation of their Safety Code. So, apparently it's not acceptable for NAR members to fly certified motors at a launch whose offset distances, etc are more stringent than NAR's, but it is okay for select NAR members to fly uncertified motors at a NAR launch. Without violating the Safety Code. -Kevin > >> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors > >> at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Kevin It's time to impeach the NARBOT. A "vote of confidence" for the entire lot. The NARBOT approval to allow "a few people" to fly motors made by a Czech manufacturer without any certification, which were imported and transported with the US under questionable conditions, is clearly, without a doubt, not good for NAR and is in violation of the NAR Safety Code.. I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is! "The weenies want their contest motors, and damn the rules", seems to be how NARBOT works these days. What a shame.... NAR screwed up big time with the whole Kosdon mess, so why should this suprise me? > It's time to impeach the NARBOT. A "vote of confidence" for the entire lot. The problem with that is who would run to take their place? Jerry Irvine? I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, to censure the baord for their improper action, and to discipline any members that violated the NAR safety code this weekend at NSL. > The NARBOT approval to allow "a few people" to fly motors made by a Czech > manufacturer without any certification, which were imported and transported > with the US under questionable conditions, is clearly, without a doubt, not > good for NAR and is in violation of the NAR Safety Code.. I guess it > depends on what the definition of "is" is! For each instance of Czech substitute USR... > "The weenies want their contest motors, and damn the rules", seems to be how > NARBOT works these days. What a shame.... Depends on who the weenie is. Plenty of other NAR weenies have been told NFW when asking for similar certification issues. But now we have a new precedence on which to get support. > NAR screwed up big time with the whole Kosdon mess, so why should this > suprise me? Perhaps. TRA screwed up worse on this one. Either the motors were legal, or they weren't. If they weren't, neither organization should have certified them. If TRA really discovered after the fact that they were illegal, they should have IMMEDIATELY pulled their certs, not given then time to be used up. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, > turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, > to censure the baord for their improper action, and to discipline any > members that violated the NAR safety code this weekend at NSL. That's not fair to the members, who were told by the BoT that it was okay. Hardly appropriate for the BoT to tell someone "Yes, go ahead and do that", then a month later, "Oh, we have to discipline you for doing that." -Kevin >> I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, >> turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, >> to censure the baord for their improper action, and to discipline any >> members that violated the NAR safety code this weekend at NSL. > > That's not fair to the members, who were told by the BoT that it was okay. It's also not fair to other members who have been disciplined in the past for flying motors that weren't certified. I think that those who may have violated the NAR Safety Code in this case should be censured, just as I've called for being done to the board. I'm not looking to kick any one out at this time. Of course, if the violations continue in the future... SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >>> I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this >>> decision, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's also not fair to other members who have been disciplined in the past > for flying motors that weren't certified. I think that those who may have So you are saying that the BOT has allowed people to fly uncertified motors in the past and then disciplined them? Don't think so. So these 2 situations are different. You see the problem is that yes uncertified motors were flown. But this time the BOT gave it's blessing "for the betterment of the hobby" as allowed by the Bylaws. Frankly I really do not like it any better than you do, but since the BOT gave the OK as allowed via the Bylaws, I think this is going to go no where. Now... If some yeahoos are flying uncertified motors without the BOT blessing, that is different. IMHO. Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com > violated the NAR Safety Code in this case should be censured, just as I've > called for being done to the board. I'm not looking to kick any one out at > this time. > > Of course, if the violations continue in the future... >That's not fair to the members, who were told by the BoT that it was okay. > >Hardly appropriate for the BoT to tell someone "Yes, go ahead and do >that", then a month later, "Oh, we have to discipline you for doing that." Well, there is precident, or history, of the NCB (you know who) having done that. :( >-Kevin > I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, > turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, > to censure the baord for their improper action, and to discipline any > members that violated the NAR safety code this weekend at NSL. Bob, I'm not sure this is the way to go as it's probably NOT going to be fruitful in any event. The Bylaws state: Section 11: For conduct prejudicial to the objectives, reputation, or property of the Association, or for failure to observe and abide by the Safety Code(s) of the Association in all model rocket activities, a member of any class may be censured, suspended, or expelled by a Committee of three Senior members in good standing appointed by the President. Notice of all charges against such member and of the time and place of the meeting at which they are to be presented shall be sent to the member by mail not less than thirty (30) days prior to such a meeting. A written summary of all evidence to be presented shall be sent to the member by mail not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to such a meeting. Such member shall be given the opportunity to be heard at the meeting in his own defense. Such member in addition to, or in lieu of a personal appearance, may present a written defense; an address to which such written defense is to be sent must be provided to the member not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to such meeting. Any member of any class charged with violation of the Safety Code(s) of the Association shall automatically be suspended from membership until the meeting of the Committee at which his case is to be decided, providing the time of suspension is not longer than one (1) year from the date of suspension until the date of the hearing. No person, once having been admitted in good faith as a member of the Association, shall be denied the right to continued membership except for the above reasons and through the above procedure, or except for non-payment of dues or other debts owed the Association. The NAR president will appoint the 3 senior members who will do the judging. They would only be found guilty if you and I was appointed to this committee and I don't think thats going to happen. The NARBOT is not going to rescind this policy because they would be admitting they did something wrong, and that isn't going to happen. Mark has already said, that this policy will stand unless you come up with a suitable alternative: so the onus is on you or whoever to come up with a competing and better plan of action. Just disagreeing with the curent policy isn't going to be enough to get it rescinded. It appears to me that NAR is a toohless tiger when it even comes to enforcemnt in their own backyard. The NARBOT routinely , let me say that again, routinely ignores and violates its own bylaws.....so do you really think anything will come from this approach? I don't.. terry dean Shockie is not a lawyer - he just plays one on rmr. >> I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, >> turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >terry dean > The NAR president will appoint the 3 senior members who will do the judging. > They would only be found guilty if you and I was appointed to this committee > and I don't think thats going to happen. Well, since it involves 8 of the 9 board members, he'll have to appoint outsiders. > The NARBOT is not going to rescind this policy because they would be > admitting they did something wrong, and that isn't going to happen. Well, at least some of them want to reconsider this action. Which I think is a good sign. > Mark has already said, that this policy will stand unless you come up with a > suitable alternative: so the onus is on you or whoever to come up with a > competing and better plan of action. Just disagreeing with the curent policy > isn't going to be enough to get it rescinded. From the very beginning of this discussion I proposed an alternate. One of the S&T members posted EXACTLY the same thing. Let S&T do it's job. I don't know if they will approve the use of these motors or not. But its their call, not the boards. I trust them to do their job in a responsible manner. > It appears to me that NAR is a toohless tiger when it even comes to > enforcemnt in their own backyard. That needs to be fixed. > The NARBOT routinely , let me say that again, routinely ignores and violates > its own bylaws.....so do you really think anything will come from this > approach? I don't.. We'll see what happens at NARAM in Phoenix. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! bob: I'm also concerned that NAR S&T appeaed to be "left out of the loop" on this one. I don't expect Jack Kane, a former long time trustee and current long time NAR S&T Committee chairman to make any adverse public statements about this new policy, but I agree that this should be left in the hands of NAR S&T, asuuming they require everything od these Czech Deltas as they do for all other model rocket motors, and this includes, USDOT paperwork, CPSC compliance,etc. Anything les in just totally unacceptable. I want everybody reading this know that I make a difference betqween: 1. Czech Delta motors sans USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance 2. Uncertfied "speciality" motors from local manufacturers like Estes,Quest,AT/RCS(or for that matter any domestic model rocket manufacturer that have had to jump through all the regulatory hoops to be legal.) 3. Uncertfied "demo" motors from the same as above 4. Decertified motors that were previously certfied with USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance I only really object to #1. And my major objections is lack of USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance. terry dean >> The NAR president will appoint the 3 senior members who will do the >> judging. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > We'll see what happens at NARAM in Phoenix. >bob: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >all other model rocket motors, and this includes, USDOT paperwork, CPSC >compliance,etc. Anything les in just totally unacceptable. I have a different perspective on this issue. First, I am sympathetic to the FAI team, and I hope that they can find a way to conduct effective competition practice. Second, I think the BOT acted inappropriately. The Czech motors are not "model rocket motors", they are "fireworks", and the FAI team use of such uncertified motors is simply amateur rocketry. NAR S&T is rightfully not involved. It is apparent that many would prefer that NAR S&T certify the motors so that everyone can purchase and use them. This is an unreasonable expectation. Get over it. AFAIK, the FAI does not type certify model rocket motors. They test and certify specific batches of motors submitted for use at the world championship competition. What would GHS do? Saint GHS, has in fact flown many uncertified motors, even, if I recall, G motors before they were recognized as MR motors. GHS was also a proponent of FAI competition, and would likely be sympathetic to the FAI team. I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and Safety Code. This is a matter to take up with the NAR Legal Council, not NAR S&T. I do believe the NAR BOT has become more liberal and allows NAR members to engage in organized amateur rocket activities, without having to resign their NAR membership first, as long a reasonable separation (e.g. days and or miles) occurs between the two different activities. I think the BOT/Presidential action is intended to permit a serious violation, a commingling of these two distinct activates. Finally, the BOT/Presidential action puts the NAR finances at risk, by approving, or becoming party to this amateur rocketry activity. There has also been some question as to the legality of how the Czech motors are actually obtained and distributed. To sum up, the BOT acton may not be legal, is bad policy (or violates previous policy), and may put the association at risk. I think the best the BOT can do is tell the FAI team that they understand the difficulty, and that they will not expel FAI team members from the NAR for using the Czech motors in appropriate (i.e. separate) FAI team practice. Alan >I want everybody reading this know that I make a difference betqween: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >terry dean > I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the > President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and Please point to the part of the NAR bylaws or some other official document that supports your "thought". Simply saying so does not make it so. Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com >> I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the >> President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and > >Please point to the part of the NAR bylaws or some other official >document that supports your "thought". Simply saying so does not >make it so. I'm not a lawyer, and my thoughts have no legal standing. However, my thoughts and opinions are my own, and I'm pointing to my head. >>> I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the >>> President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not a lawyer, and my thoughts have no legal standing. However, my > thoughts and opinions are my own, and I'm pointing to my head. Awesome! We can cut to the chase then... You are wrong in your "thought". Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com >>>> I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the >>>> President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Awesome! We can cut to the chase then... You are wrong in your >"thought". That is possible. However, the important thing is that readers are now looking to the bylaws, and perhaps legal opinions, rather than looking to NAR S&T on this matter. Alan > On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:20:38 -0400, "shockwaveriderz" > I think the best the BOT can do is tell the FAI team that they > understand the difficulty, and that they will not expel FAI team > members from the NAR for using the Czech motors in appropriate (i.e. > separate) FAI team practice. Then they should have said that. DO it as an activity not under the NAR umbrella, like an EX or independent launch. And not allowed the practice to be comingled with NSL. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:20:38 -0400, "shockwaveriderz" >> I think the best the BOT can do is tell the FAI team that they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Then they should have said that. Gee, I wish I had said that. ;) > DO it as an activity not under the NAR >umbrella, like an EX or independent launch. And not allowed the practice to >be comingled with NSL. FAI team competition is still done under the AMA umbrella. Ideally, this should provide some separation and avoid commingling. The NAR has agreed to do the FAI team member selection, but presumably this will be done using only NAR certified motors, flown in accordance with the Safety Code. Alan effective today, the AMA and the NAR signed an 5 yr agreement to turn over FAI spacemodeling competition back to the NAR; I have it on good authority that only a NAR membership will be required for USA Team Flyoffs and Practices, so only the NAR MRSC will be in effect. This, no doubt, is one reason for the recent policy shift . Once the USA Team is selected, ONLy then will a AMA membership with FAI stamp be required to actually participate in World SPacemodleing Championships (WSMC). I personally am all for growing and popularizing FAI Spacemodleing competition here in the USA. This NAR had the choice of choosing wthe "right" thing to do versus the "easy" and expedient thing to do. Unfortunately they took the easy way out. Its my understanding that the NAR will pay the AMA $1600 per WSMC and $160 per competitior in the WSMC. Since there are 5 WSMC events and a JR and SR team that would amount to: 5 events x 3 people per event team x 2 teams = 30 x 160.= $4800 + $1600 = $5400. Over the 5 yr life of the contract this comes to: $5400 x 5 = $27,000. For this kind of money they could have got the czech delta motors legally tested for use here in the USA. And it wouldn't be the first time the NAR used NAR membership money to "seed" fund a program. Alot of people don't realize that the NAR put up $75K seed money to get TARC off the ground. Now of course they were reimbursed by the AIA. Theres nothing in any local,state or federal laws that says the NAR couldn't import and sell czech delta motors ONLY to NAR FAI competitiors. The reason I say ONLY, is Jiri Taborsky doesn't have the capacity nor the interest to make the quantities of motors that would be required NAR members in general could use them for NAR competition. The NAR could then sell them at a suitable markup, such that: 1. they get back their initial investment for doing the required USDOT testing 2. they actually turn a profit at some point in time such that the profit is invested back in to purchasing future motors 3. it provides a source of income dedicated to the FAI Team funding I don't have any objection to NAR members uisng Czech Delta or any other foreign motors as long as they undergo the same USDOT paperwork that all of our USA motor manufacturing compnaies have to go through or that they have the marking and labeling required by the CPSC like all USA manufactured motors do. terry dean >>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:20:38 -0400, "shockwaveriderz" >>> I think the best the BOT can do is tell the FAI team that they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Alan > And it wouldn't be the first time the NAR used NAR membership money to > "seed" fund a program. Alot of people don't realize that the NAR put up $75K > seed money to get TARC off the ground. I didn't know that either but it seems a logical use of the organization's money. I don't see a problem with the above. It's all part of growing the hobby. Isn't that what NAR should be doing? >Now of course they were reimbursed by the AIA. Great, they got it back but what if they hadn't? TARC is still a good use of funds, IMHO. Randy www.vernarockets.com Someone brought to my attention some factual errors regarding NAR programs. >> Its my understanding that the NAR will pay the AMA $1600 per WSMC >> and $160 per competitior in the WSMC. This understanding would be 100% incorrect and a complete fabrication. >> Alot of people don't realize that the NAR put up $75K seed money to >> get TARC off the ground. Now of course they were reimbursed by >> the AIA. Since its inception, TARC has been funded by AIA members companies' generous sponsorships, not by NAR funds. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org "A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye." snip Thanks Mark for clearing that up. Randy www.vernarockets.com there may be factual errors in my comments but as far as the AMA quotes, I was told that by AMA HQ. SO its not a complete fabrication... as far as the $75 K seed money for TARC, I just reviewed the NAR financials spreadsheets , and I evidently misread the data... SO I am wrong on that point.... The NAR financials spreadsheets do seem to indicate some TARC continuing expenses though which I suppose is to be expected and accepted.... None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its membership monies to do what I have suggested they do. terry dean > Someone brought to my attention some factual errors regarding NAR > programs. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent > questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye." > None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its > membership monies to do what I have suggested they do. Wait, I know!!! The NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what I want them to do!!! or... Alternatively, the NAR could use some of its membership monies to do what the BOT votes they should do... <G> David Erbas-White > Alternatively, the NAR could use some of its membership monies to do > what the BOT votes they should do... <G> Oh...my...god... Let the BoT actually run an organization? Make decisions and stuff, without running everything past the membership for their approval, first? Wow! What a novel concept! Letting elected officials do their jobs.... -Kevin > > Alternatively, the NAR could use some of its membership monies to do > > what the BOT votes they should do... <G> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -Kevin We can all see how well that's worked with GW Bush. The NSA likes the "no warrant" requirement. All elected leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. Period. They might make decisions with out the vote of the masses (that's why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy), but once a decision is made, the elected officials should be held accountable for those decisions. > None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its membership monies to do what I > have suggested they do. Sigh - I know just how you feel. I keep writing letters to Jessica Simpson, suggesting that she have my babies, but the only thing I get are rude letters from her lawyers, and restraining orders. >> None of the above negate the facts that the NAR could use some its membership monies to do what I >> have suggested they do. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I keep writing letters to Jessica Simpson, suggesting that she have my babies, > but the only thing I get are rude letters from her lawyers, and restraining orders. A restraining order is just another way of saying I love you. :) Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 Under NAR, all model rocketeers are equal ... under NARBOD, some model rocketeers are MORE equal than others ... Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back almost 47 years. The current NAR prez has been in office what some 10,12+ years now? Mark Bundick even publically admitted back in 1997/98 that he had NEVER launched a HPR and after visiting a TRA launch, was impressed with the safety and his misgivings had been removed. Now that combined with NAR's anti-HPR attitude, LPR manufacture influenced, of the 1990s, I decided to stop supporting NAR. And if only 3% of the NAR membership votes for its Prez/BOD, then you get what you pay for ... > > >> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors > > >> at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > NAR screwed up big time with the whole Kosdon mess, so why should this > suprise me? > Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a > BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back > almost 47 years. OH MY GOD, LIKE THAT EVIL CAPITALIST BARON, VERN ESTES??? So on the one hand, NAR is run by "weenies", and on the other hand, it is being controlled by an evil cabal of powerful rocketry manufacturers????? LOL! p.s. the rest of your message had me in stitches, too! <snippage happens> You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir. SignatureTweak Is this one of those jokes: 'You know you are a REDNECK when your rocket has your NRA number on it instead of your NAR number!' > <snippage happens> > > You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir. > You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir. Sorry. I actually like a lot of rednecks. Poor choice of derogatives. > > You do us "real" rednecks an injustice, sir. > > Sorry. I actually like a lot of rednecks. Poor choice of derogatives. 'tis ok...we're used to it. ;-) Technically, I would be a "good ol' boy" anyway, not a redneck. SignatureTweak Hello Malcolm, I wasn't trying to be funny, but serious; Its ok to laugh though :P Look, NAR really doesn't have much to offer except road blocks. Now in recent years, it has come in-line with the consumer/hobbyist. I want to fly low power; I am going to do it on my own. I just find a local park/field and fly A - D. Why do I need NAR to do that? What can NAR offer me that I can't provide for myself for free? Oh, NAR has a magazine ... ok, I typically just walk over to the magazine rack, read through the mag in 20 min, and walk away ... no need paying for it, and if there is something that I need to copy, I just head down to the library and photocopy it for free. Do I need NAR insurance? Nope, as I carry personal liability insurance, and my TRA insurance helps too. So lets see, NAR insurance is MEANINGLESS to me. NAR magazine is FREE at the local bookstore/library. NAR BOD is useless to me, as I don't fly competition nor do I follow/care about their political in-fighting. This is why, I haven't renewed my NAR membership for a couple decades now ... When I saw this posting, I ignored it for weeks as I do NAR. But then I decided to chime in here and give my opinion about NAR and its BOD. When I buy a rocket motor, do I check with NAR, NAR BOD, or NAR Charter first? Hell, Fing NO! NAR plays little to NO role in my model rocket activity. They only org that I check with and fly at organized meets is TRA. I fly NAR decertified motors all the time ... NAR can't and WON'T stop me. And I have imported motors from Europe/Asia and I will fly those too! NAR hasn't changed its paradigm since the late 1908s ... and still counting ... > > Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a > > BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > p.s. the rest of your message had me in stitches, too! > NAR hasn't changed its paradigm since the late 1908s ... and still > counting ... Dang, that's a long time ago. I still blame Taft, though. SignatureTweak > Dang, that's a long time ago. I still blame Taft, though. From old carton.... Buggs Bunny: Look Sam, the Civil War has been over for more than 90 years. Yosemite Sam: I'm no clock watcher!!! Randy www.vernarockets.com >> Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a >> BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >p.s. the rest of your message had me in stitches, too! "Weenies" eh? A fair portion of the NAR BOT have PhDs, and other impressive credentials and achievements. Although Bunny likes to pass as a good old southern boy, he is in fact a respectable northern banker type (a VP?). These are the same "weenies" that had the courage to go up against the BATFE. Alan > "Weenies" eh? A fair portion of the NAR BOT have PhDs, and other > impressive credentials and achievements. Although Bunny likes to pass > as a good old southern boy, he is in fact a respectable northern > banker type (a VP?). These are the same "weenies" that had the courage > to go up against the BATFE. Just to clarify, I was not calling the NAR BOT "weenies", I was sarcastically berating those who call them "weenies" one moment, and in the next moment accuse them of being cabalistic hatchetmen. >> "Weenies" eh? A fair portion of the NAR BOT have PhDs, and other >> impressive credentials and achievements. Although Bunny likes to pass [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >berating those who call them "weenies" one moment, and in the next moment >accuse them of being cabalistic hatchetmen. Yes, I got that. You just had the misfortune of posting your reply as a new thread. While the "redneck", had been addressed, I just wanted to address the "weenies". Now about that cabal... OTOH, we could be led by a carpet bagger, carpet layer, err whatever... While the NAR BOT is not perfect, and may be too slow and conservative at times, the NAR is generally in good hands. Who the hell are you? You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. > Look, you people are getting what you deserver fron NAR. You have a > BOD that is VERY heavily influenced and ran by manufactures going back > almost 47 years. The current NAR prez has been in office what some NAR BOT controlled by manufacturers? Absurd. NAR policy requires public disclosure of such involvement. Even when Vern was on the board a while back, he was no longer involved in the company that still uses his name. Gary Rosenfield was on the NAR board while in business, but that was a LONG time ago. Matt Steele was as well. Then there was that little issue that Trip had to disclose when he was still in the Navy. Other than that, it's been a LONG time since the NAR board had a manufacturer on it. How many manufacturers has TRA had on its board in the past decade or two? Half of them? > 10,12+ years now? Mark Bundick even publically admitted back in > 1997/98 that he had NEVER launched a HPR and after visiting a TRA That's pure BS. Bunny attended HPR launches long before he became NAR Prez. Hell (I can say that since it's 6/6/6 today), he RAN the first NAR HPR launch ever, the sport launch at NARAM-33 in 1991. I can't recall when he got his HPR certification, but he IS HPR certified. And has been for a long time. I'm not sure of Jay Apt's HPR certification status (you might say he's level 6 or something like that), but the only other NAR board member in the last decade I can recall that definitely was NOT HPR certified was Vern. Now, since you're so wrong here, I suggest you visit this site and order something: http://www.hasbro.com/forms/orderform.cfm?prod=Clue&sku=00045 SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors at >> a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in our >> face as the reason why. >> > So, you're condemning the NARBOT based on a guess. When you've made > your request and been turned down, let us all know... I've made a similar request before. Someone else made that same request which appears in the same board minutes a few paragraphs earlier. The answer was still no. But since we've changed precedent, I will ask yet again at the association meeting at NARAM-48. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > ... > I've made a similar request before. So let me get this straight. You must believe that the Safety Code has enough flexibility to allow this to occur. If it was as black-and-white as you claim, you would never have made the request. The problem is that someone else GOT the permission and you didn't. This sounds like an ego issue more than a safety issue. The teacher let someone else ride their bike in the schoolyard, but you couldn't. Wahhh. Deal with it. I keep waiting for the foot stomping, jumping up and down, and shouting to begin.. Maybe Jerry will come along tell Bob, "I told you so"...(:-) Fred > > ... > > I've made a similar request before. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > someone else ride their bike in the schoolyard, but you couldn't. Wahhh. > Deal with it. Who are you, hiding beind an anonymous name? >> I've made a similar request before. > > So let me get this straight. You must believe that the Safety Code has > enough flexibility to allow this to occur. If it was as black-and-white > as you claim, you would never have made the request. Sure. I (and others) asked that motors not be expired off the certified motor list just because they haven't been made for 5 years. I never asked to |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message